Jet Fuel does NOT Melt Steel Beams

[howlingwolfpaw]

9/11 just passed and I wanted to make a post for it but did not want to be insensitive to the many who were killed and the families still grieving. But with that being said to truly honor those who were killed one must continue to point to the truth to dispel the narrative of the official collapse story. I believe the truth will one day be known and that is when real justice will have been served for this false flag attack that changed the world and future course of humanity. It is important to understand and talk about intelligently and with respect to learn from and set the course of action for the future down a more prosperous path. To undue the past 13-15 years of unjust wars. Arguably this is one of the single most pivotal moments in history but is little understood outside of emotion and nationalism.

I could go into the conspiracy of the who, and why but not at this time. As they are largely theories and not necessarily true while the motives do exist.

First and importantly is to realize the truth that the official narrative exist outside the reality of physics and is believed simply due to cognitive dissonance of the complex implications that the official story would be false. But too many coincidences and half truths surround the event.

>The trace center towers were built unlike most other sky scrappers, they had most of their steel supports on the outside cage, which is why it had very small windows whereas most others have pure glass on the outside. This was done to be incredible strong.
>Though structural steel can weaken at 1500 degree it is unlikely the building got that hot. Even in a blacksmith forge the forge must be way hotter than you want the steel to get to get it to 1500 degrees easily. and must completely surround the metal, put the metal on top of the fire and it barely gets hot at all. plus the steel was insulated in fir resistant coatings and reinforced with concrete.
>Looking at the fires shortly after the planes hit people were seen standing in the opening looking to get out, there was also >strong black smoke and no visible orange glow of active fires suggesting it was oxygen deficient. Had it been that hot to weaken all the beams equally those people would have been burnt up.
>Pools of molten metal were reported in the basement which can not happen in 1500 degrees.
> had the steel actually gotten hot enough to fail the weakest points would have collapsed so that the top would have tipped and sheered off to the side. Even hot steel while becoming malleable retains much of its compression strength. There is no way for both to have collapsed into themselves. Controlled demolition takes a precise science to get that to happen. It is especially difficult for buildings as tall as the world trade centers.

>building 7 also came down in part of a controlled demolition that had nothing more than office fires. And would never have done so. What the Pennsylvania flight meant to hit this building but since it failed they blew it up anyway?

> the pentagon could not have been hit by a plane with a wing span greater than that of the hole.


I have only scratched the surface of the many inconsistencies that surround this event. I suggest you look into what I say and keep an open mind and see through the lies, and half truths.


Where were you that day? I was walking on college campus to class and I heard from a passer by a plane hit a building, I was aghast but did not think that much of it until I heard coming back from class 2 had hit and I knew that something big had happened. Quite emotional then it started me down a quest for truth, peace and understanding.

[pecelot]

illuminati aside, that's the most convincing conspiracy theory I've ever heard. I'm not an expert, but some arguments sound really reasonable, like planes causing a destruction to such tall buildings

[gustavusadolphus]

The Ear and I were on a field trip in elementary school which was cut short. Neither of us were told in school and we found out when we got home. Personally, I don't believe the conspiracies but I do find it amazing that the buildings collapsed due to heat and not blunt force.

[howlingwolfpaw]

concrete does not disintegrate like that into a cloud of dust, it was controlled demolition.

[momuuu]

It always disappoints me a lot that conspiracy theories put a lot of doubt on anything that doesnt fit in with the theory while not doubting their own arguments at all. For example you have not provided a single source in your post so nothing you claimed can be checked or considered. If you really want to make this any credible you should provide actual sources imo.

I find the jet fuel cant melt steel beams argument absolutely mind boggling. I dont even really get why it wouldnt be able to. Burn fuel and you get heat energy, if that amount of energy gets high you can melt most stuff, right?

I hope you have any scientific sources btw, its a pretty interesting case. Pls not these random youtube videos.

[n0el]

Since steel is my profession, i highly despise these theories and talking about this.

If steel heats over room temperature it weakens. It's nearly linear in terms of strength degradation with increasing temp. As the strength drops, the ductility or ability to take deformation increases. Also, once steel exceeds approx 1200 F, the strength essentially goes to zero. As for the melting... As the steel begins to deform heat is released, assuming that there is significant deformation occurring due to the things mentioned above, there could be enough heat to generate local melting.

[gustavusadolphus]

I did not consider the weakening aspect. In my mind I was thinking it had to melt but you two are right about weakening being enough. i had not thought of it that way.

[howlingwolfpaw]

Name another steel building that collapsed due to fires.

here is building 7 that was not attacked by a plane or had jet fuel burning.


Even if the steel were to weaken to collapse why would it fall at nearly free fall? It just doesn't do that. For every action there is an opposite reaction as the weight of the building would start to pancake floors it would be absorbed and begin to defect until the top came sheared off. Instead we see the lower floors being blown out beneath the falling top. so it can call straight down, the steel in the lower floors is still plenty strong. and would not do that so easily.

here you can see actual molten steel falling from the building.


we are led to believe the steel was hot enough to melt but here are people in the opening



here you can see an actual cut beam from thermite



we are told a plane hit the pentagon, but how may i ask is that possible?



where is the plane?




I also work with metal as an amateur blacksmith.
It loses strength but very little compression strength. you have to hit hot metal a lot just to dent it a little even when its hot, even though it is very malleable it also has all the strength of the concrete to support it. which has great compression strength as well, steel is added to increase concretes strength to sway in the wind as it is more brittle. even if there was enough heat to cause deformation then the building would have found the weakest spot to lean to (slowly since the heat builds up and its strength is gradually lessened) it would not spontaneously collapse evenly on all sides. and then continue to pancake its way down to the base.

you say that the deformation is going to cause melting? what is it you do? heat a piece of metal up white hot, bend it, hit it, its still not going to spontaneously melt. The fires must be way hotter and purer.

A thing about entropy Jerom, having something hot burn, but then adding even more fuel that burns at lesser degrees does not add even more heat to the equation, it actually lessens it. for instance you can burn charcoal made from wood (pure carbon) to melt steel in a crucible, it takes a while and a lot of energy but that's how its been done throughout history, yet you cannot take raw wood and feed that in a fire to melt steel because the impurities burn at less temps than the carbon, lessening the heat of the fire.
Same instance in how a heat pump can produce heat because the anti freeze boils at temperatures way below ambient air temperatures. Heat dissipates to even out.

[n0el]

Are you a civil engineer? Do you have any clue how buildings are constructed or how materials behave under static loading?

[n0el]

Also, read a real report by actual people who know what they are talking about.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/01 ... -0112.html

[howlingwolfpaw]

nice article, proves that the damage from the plane alone not enough to cause failure.
proves heat was not enough to melt steel, and was much cooler than 1500 degrees yet molten steel found, and pictures of cut beams i presented.
This is an incomplete projection that says they totally collapsed do the the center falling out, yet there was also a strong inner core. Its called disinformation by proving a false with a truth.

Does not explain how building 7 fell,
here you can actually see the demolition charges going off
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GY0yWXGaKs[/video]

does not explain how plane in pentagon provided a smaller damage than the plane itself.
nor the pulverizing of concrete into powder for the trade centers.



here is a MIT engineer actually calling out the Thomas Eagar conclusions, and cites work of other engineers.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg[/video]
part 2
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW81Cd7nNH8[/video]

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Method_man714]

Not sure I believe in the conspiracy but I do know that jfk was advised to authorise an incident where planes were shot down, and creating evidence to frame Fidel Castro for doing it and in so doing legitimise a war on Cuba. Jfk apparently rejected this but it has been talked about in the past.

[gibson]

What a crock of shit. Oliver stone 2.0

[momuuu]

Howlingwolf I really think you should try to use real sources on this one. Youre making a lot of claims that are hardly backed up at all, and youtube really isnt a source.

[Mr_Bramboy]

Not sure I believe in the conspiracy but I do know that jfk was advised to authorise an incident where planes were shot down, and creating evidence to frame Fidel Castro for doing it and in so doing legitimise a war on Cuba. Jfk apparently rejected this but it has been talked about in the past.

I forgot the name of this operation but yes this happened. The idea was to create terrorist attacks on U.S citizens to justify a war against the filthy communists. Not sure if it was jfk but the president denied this operation.

[momuuu]

I have a question, if Jet Fuel can't melt steel beams, then what did melt the steel beams? The controlled demolition theory doesn't really make it seem more likely that steel beams melt..

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[momuuu]

I have a question, if Jet Fuel can't melt steel beams, then what did melt the steel beams? The controlled demolition theory doesn't really make it seem more likely that steel beams melt..

noel explained that in simple terms earlier.

The gist of it is that the more you heat steel, the weaker it gets. It doesn't lose its strength all at once. So it basically just got weaker until it couldn't do its job anymore. The steel got weaker but it still had to support the weight of the sky-scraper. It then got too weak and collapsed.

I am wondering how the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" (so the non-noel side of things) explains how the beams did melt then. I dont really see how an explosion would achieve it tbh.

[gibson]

Not sure I believe in the conspiracy but I do know that jfk was advised to authorise an incident where planes were shot down, and creating evidence to frame Fidel Castro for doing it and in so doing legitimise a war on Cuba. Jfk apparently rejected this but it has been talked about in the past.

I forgot the name of this operation but yes this happened. The idea was to create terrorist attacks on U.S citizens to justify a war against the filthy communists. Not sure if it was jfk but the president denied this operation.

Well, I mean, Iraq war was basically the same thing. Weapons of mass destruction was flat out fallacy.

At least he meant well! -Bush supporters after thousands of lives were lost fighting a war that wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been there in the first place..... And people today have the gall to criticize Obama for trying to leave

[gibson]

I have a question, if Jet Fuel can't melt steel beams, then what did melt the steel beams? The controlled demolition theory doesn't really make it seem more likely that steel beams melt..

noel explained that in simple terms earlier.

The gist of it is that the more you heat steel, the weaker it gets. It doesn't lose its strength all at once. So it basically just got weaker until it couldn't do its job anymore. The steel got weaker but it still had to support the weight of the sky-scraper. It then got too weak and collapsed.

I am wondering how the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" (so the non-noel side of things) explains how the beams did melt then. I dont really see how an explosion would achieve it tbh.

The beams didn't actually melt which is what makes the argument for conspiracy so stupid. People just assume that a steal beam maintains integrity when its super heated, so if it didn't get melted how did the building collapse!?!?!?!? Retards.......

[deleted_user0]

nice article, proves that the damage from the plane alone not enough to cause failure.
proves heat was not enough to melt steel, and was much cooler than 1500 degrees yet molten steel found, and pictures of cut beams i presented.
This is an incomplete projection that says they totally collapsed do the the center falling out, yet there was also a strong inner core. Its called disinformation by proving a false with a truth.

Does not explain how building 7 fell,
here you can actually see the demolition charges going off
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GY0yWXGaKs[/video]

does not explain how plane in pentagon provided a smaller damage than the plane itself.
nor the pulverizing of concrete into powder for the trade centers.



here is a MIT engineer actually calling out the Thomas Eagar conclusions, and cites work of other engineers.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg[/video]
part 2
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW81Cd7nNH8[/video]

that video seems kinda weird. why would you turn your camera away after you spot such weird explosions. where is the rest of the footage?

[howlingwolfpaw]

I have a question, if Jet Fuel can't melt steel beams, then what did melt the steel beams? The controlled demolition theory doesn't really make it seem more likely that steel beams melt..

reported traces of thermite detected plus you can see a photo of a central column that was cut at a 45degree angle which is done with thermite. Thermite is so hot it instantly melts and cuts through thick metal.

I provide photos as some evidence. The amount of research I have done over the years is too hard to trace to provide what you want. That is where you will need to do your own homework. Do not trust my word for it, look it up yourself, too over whelming. Some people have made great videos on youtube however to present the information they have researched in a clear way. I am just not computer savy. The more you look into it though you will see how deep and corrupt and lies of the official story. It goes way beyond just buildings falling but into the politics and motives and other coincidences that surround the event.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --